Transferring non-news radio and TV production to the independent sector would save the BBC millions and possibly even the BBC itself

My favourite character in the spoof BBC documentary W1A, which ended last week, was Welsh manager Tracey Pritchard, whose catchphrase was, “I’m not being funny or anything…”. Before her boss went on Woman’s Hour to discuss sexism: “I’m not being funny or anything, Ian. But you’re a man. And I’m a woman. And this is very tricky territory.”

Useless executives, the obsession with new media, the weasel words of two-faced commissioning editors – all were skilfully cuffed. Surprisingly, though, I agreed with Tracey. The programme wasn’t being funny or anything. In fact, I was mildly angry. I’m not sure the BBC is a laughing matter. Not a cosy, in-house, pat-ourselves-on-the-back one, anyway. When our greatest cultural institution has become a vast, costly mess, is it not the stuff of drama? Tragedy, even?

The latest reminder came on Thursday. The Public Accounts Committee called the BBC’s Digital Media Initiative (DMI), which aimed for a YouTube-style “tapeless” environment, “a total failure”. It cost nearly £100 million of public money. This, after the £1 billion it cost to build New Broadcasting House, which is arguably not fit for purpose. Then there’s the manager issue.

Despite recent tinkering, there are still too many with unjustifiable salaries. James Purnell, the £295,000-a-year “Director of Strategy and Digital”, couldn’t have dreamt of earning that in his last job at a centre-Left think tank. This is an organisation whose leader, Lord Hall, did the right thing by getting rid of DMI, but who is so out of touch with the mainstream that he recently announced a flagship policy of greater links with high art, even though opera-loving Hampstead types are already super-served by the BBC. I could go on, but you get my drift: the BBC needs fundamental change. It is an ungovernable, dysfunctional behemoth.

David Dimbleby, Nick Ross and David Elstein have all talked recently of the need for reform, as have ex-BBC executives, aided no doubt by the added perspective that comes from sitting atop a mountain of BBC pension cash. The key item on the agenda is funding. There is, for the first time, a consensus coalescing around replacing the licence fee. The early front-runner to take its place is voluntary subscription. The appeal is obvious. It would make the BBC’s life easier as it would no longer have to please all of the people all of the time. But the logistics are tough. How do you stop non-subscribers listening to BBC radio? It is the broadcasting equivalent of reversing a vasectomy.

There is a cuter option, which would preserve the great things about the BBC and do away with most of the bad. Transfer all in-house radio and TV production – bar news and current affairs – to the independent sector. Keep only a skeleton staff of essential personnel. No “Heads of Television” or “Creative Directors”, just channel controllers, plus commissioners of drama and comedy and so on. Like ITV and C4, in fact. The independent sector would then make – and commercially exploit – the shows the BBC currently produces, such as EastEnders and Strictly. That would leave the BBC with its news operation – too important to be hived off to private interests, as it needs to retain its impartiality. News currently costs around £1 billion a year – although you could do the same job for less – which accounts for roughly one third of the licence fee.

The savings would be huge. Thousands of people would be off the wage bill. The good ones would be snapped up by the private sector. The BBC would still have to pay independents for its programmes but many would cost less at present as the private sector is more efficient and, if allowed to be, more imaginative at finding new sources of funding. It is not fanciful that the licence fee could then be trimmed by a quarter, to 99 quid. Failing that, a token cut of, say, £20. The licence fee would then be secure for a generation and the BBC’s editorial independence, the most important thing it has, would be preserved.

It’s a bit of a fudge: but fudge can be tasty. And this one would be both wealth-creating and crowd-pleasing. We need to decide quickly, though. Licence-fee negotiations take place in 2016. Just as well. Because – and I’m not being funny or anything – the BBC can’t carry on in its present form for much longer.

A priest has become the first in Britain to defy the Church of England’s ban on gay clergy marrying. Canon Jeremy Pemberton, 58, a divorced hospital chaplain, wed his long-term partner Laurence Cunnington, 51, on Saturday afternoon.

Campaigners expressed delight that the couple had taken advantage of Britain’s newly-introduced gay marriage laws and urged bishops to “bless” their partnership. They predict he will be the first of many gay clergy to marry.

But a leading member of the Church’s conservative evangelical wing called for “discipline” of any clergy seen to be breaking the rules. He warned of a “crisis” if the leadership failed to take action.

Canon Pemberton, who has five children, is a chaplain at Lincoln hospital and also works in the Church’s Southwell and Nottingham diocese. In 2012 he was a signatory to a letter to The Telegraph from dozens of clergy warning that if the Church refused to permit gay weddings in its own churches they would advise members of their congregations to marry elsewhere.

Earlier this year an acrimonious row broke out within the Church after the House of Bishops decided to ban gay clergy from marrying when same-sex marriage became legal last month. The decision, which means that anyone defying the ban could face lengthy disciplinary measures, was welcomed by traditionalists but infuriated liberals and campaigners for gay rights.

Although the Church of England formally objected to the introduction of gay marriage and has opted out of performing the ceremonies, there have been growing signs of a more relaxed stance on homosexuality. Bishops agreed that gay couples who get married will be able to ask for special prayers after the ceremony.

However, on Saturday night the Rev Preb Rod Thomas, chairman of the Reform evangelical group, said: “There’s no doubt that there is pressure within some parts of the church for the Church to change its mind on sexuality.

“If there is not clear discipline then it is the equivalent to saying 'we really didn’t mean what we said.’ It will precipitate a crisis.”

He warned that traditionalists “who stick by the biblical understanding” of marriage would be unable to accept a “messy compromise”, potentially leading to a situation similar to in the US where a traditionalist splinter Church has emerged from the liberal Episcopal Church.

However, the Rev Colin Coward, a friend of Canon Pemberton’s and director of the Changing Attitude campaign group, of which he is a former trustee, said: “I’m really, really happy for Jeremy and his partner that they are finally able to get married after a long time of being together as a couple.

“I hope the bishops find a way to affirm and bless their relationship rather than taking action against them.”

Dr Giles Fraser, the former canon chancellor of St Paul’s, also congratulated the couple.

The Bishop of Lincoln, the Rt Rev Christopher Lowson, said: “I am aware that a member of the clergy who works in the Diocese of Lincoln has married a partner of the same sex. The priest concerned wrote to me in advance to explain his intention and we had a subsequent meeting in which I explained the guidelines of the House of Bishops.”

Fréjus, a touristic Riviera town, has become the latest bastion of the Front National

Fréjus is a quiet Riviera town with Roman ruins in its centre, a port full of yachts, and a tourist-friendly sea front with restaurants and ice cream shops. With low crime and immigration rates, and joblessness only slightly higher than the national average, there seems little obvious need for radical change.

Yet in his office former papal palace, David Rachline, the smooth-talking 26-year old new mayor, is promising just that under the banner of Marine Le Pen's "detoxified" and "non-racist" far-Right Front National.

Two weeks ago, Fréjus, population 54,000, voted massively in favour of Mr Rachline, handing him 46 per cent of the vote in a three-way run-off with two rival Right-wingers.

It places the young "Frontiste" in charge of the biggest town of 11 towns won by the FN in its best-ever performance in municipal elections, in which the ruling Socialists of President François Hollande suffered major losses.

Symbolically, it is a huge responsibility. After a disastrous attempt at running a handful of towns in the 1990s - including nearby Toulon - ended in corruption convictions and financial ruin, the FN knows it cannot put a foot wrong in its new bastions if it wants to be seen as anything more than a protest party.

With Fréjus the spearhead of that credibility campaign, all eyes are on Mr Rachline. Dubbed "baby Le Pen par excellence" by the party leader, Mr Rachline is a poster child for the newlook FN, whose bid to become a "serious", "respectable" party has seen more than a third of French people say they have no problem with its ideas of national preference, a return to the franc and zero immigration.

"These municipal victories are a chance to show that an alternative is possible, that there is something else other than sterile swapping between Left and Right, who peddle the same ideas, apply the same policies and fail in the same way," he told The Telegraph. "The French are aware of this and want something different."

Like all the towns where the FN topped the polls in municipal elections, Mr Rachline has been helped by the fact that Fréjus is a political basket case.

The municipality has amassed around €150m (£124m) of debt, making it the fifth most indebted town of this size in France. Its outgoing centre-right mayor, Elie Brun, was last year found guilty of favoritism for awarding the rights to a private beach to a member of his family.

The town's previous political godfather - the former defence minister, François Léotard - was also convicted of corruption.

Nonetheless, the Front is leaving nothing to chance, drafting in Philippe Lottiau, a graduate of ENA, France's top school for civil servants, and who ran for mayor in Avignon, as Mr Rachline's chief aide.

His first decision as mayor was to order two audits on the state of the town's finances and to announce he would not be replacing all retiring municipal staff.

With his focus on service delivery and planning issues, he epitomises the FN's efforts to forge a new, technocratic image, glossing over the more menacing sides of FN ideology while failing to reject them outright. He is, however, no newcomer to the party himself.

A spiritual son of Jean-Marie Le Pen, he joined the party at 15 years old, going on to become national head of the FN youth movement. Arguably the most odd aspect of his political CV, though, is that he himself is half-Jewish.

Given that Jean-Marie Le Pen famously dismissed the Nazi gas chambers as a "detail" of history, was it not an unusual choice of party?

"Le Pen is a big boy and can say what he likes, it's a controversy that doesn't interest me," he said. "It was before my time, and is not what I retain from Mr Le Pen's career. This intellectual terrorism must stop. I'm here to talk about urban planning for Fréjus, the problem of unemployment, insecurity, not sterile rows dating back 30 years."

True to those words, his campaign mainly revolved around promises to end cronyism and debt, redynamise the city centre and create extra parking spaces, a nightclub, and a business centre. He did, however, question plans to build a mosque, which he claimed would be big enough to house 2,000 people and might have a minaret.

So how has he gone down with voters?

In the streets of the old town, the talk is of relief at getting rid of the previous mayor, who Mr Rachline accused of bringing the city to its knees financially by awarding public works contracts to the same companies. Since his election, Mr Rachline said he had already discovered "ghost" town hall jobs and opaque book keeping.

One shopkeer, who declined to be named, said: "People decided to vote for Rachline above all because they didn't want the old mayor and his cronies – it's a vote of rejection, not adherence."

"I don't agree, said his colleague. "I think that the mosque issue was a big thorn in the side of the former mayor. Nobody is racist supposedly but nobody wants such a building near their villa."

"I get many customers –particularly old ones from surrounding residential areas - saying they don't want to come in anymore because there are too many Arabs. These people have done nothing wrong, but that's what I hear."

Surprisingly, in La Gabelle, the town's only housing estate populated almost exclusively by locals of North African origin and the site of the planned mosque, there was no alarm.

"It's not a racist vote, it's an alternative. People want change. I'm not worried at all," said Cherif Hamlaoui, a textile trader. "As for talk of the mosque, he took this line to secure the 12 per cent of pure FN supporters who are philistines. That's politics."

"As for the rest, he wants to dynamise the town, pay Fréjus's debt. He may be 26, but he's competent. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt."

"Not only that, Fréjus is under the national microscope, his every action will be scrutinised – whether it be corruption, racism."

Brahim Afkir, 38, who runs a pizzera at the entrance to La Gabelle, added: "If Rachline can adapt to create a calm, serene climate of exchange, why not? I'm prepared to judge the man rather than his political label."

Talk of "national preference" and other planks of FN ideology are nowhere to be seen in Mr Rachline's moderate discourse, and for good reason, according to Sylvain Crépon, an FN specialist.

"FN mayors will not try and apply national policies at local level so as not to court ideological scandal," he said. "They just want to raise their legimitacy as managers, to reduce the deficit in towns where it is high. They will if anything try and keep a low profile and leave the task of relaying FN ideas to far-Right municipal councillors."

After municipal success, the FN now has its sights firmly fixed on May's European elections. One poll out this week suggested that the far-Right will come first on 24 per cent, ahead of the UMP, on 23 per cent, and the Socialists and their allies, on 21 per cent.

"The EU elections are going to be absolutely fundamental for France and for Europe, because the bankruptcy of EU countries is mainly due to the catastrophic politics of Brussels – globalisation, unfair competition, the total absence of protectionism of borders, immigration," said Mr Rachline.

"In all areas, the EU is imposing its choices on France without any real democratic legitimacy – I see this is an issue for UKIP and others. Looking at the polls, we're on course to do very well.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

Background

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Leftist logic: There are allegedly no distinctions between groups of humans, yet we're still supposed to celebrate diversity.

Identity politics is a form of racism

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

One may say that the person who gets in trouble with drugs is just as dumb without them

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE

RELIGION:

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here